Trial reportBMC pediatrics2026
Comparison of the effectiveness of two active distraction methods in reducing pain, fear, and anxiety in children during venipuncture: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07249723 (Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Active Distraction Methods in Reducing Pain, Fear, and Anxiety in Children Undergoing Venous Blood Sampling), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Two Active Distraction Methods in Reducing Pain, Fear, and Anxiety in Children Undergoing Venous Blood Sampling
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPediatric venipuncture is one of the most stressful invasive procedures for children, often accompanied by intense pain, fear, and anxiety. This study aimed to compare the effects of two active distraction methods-bubble blowing and a material-free cognitive distraction/positive reinforcement technique-on pain, fear, and anxiety.
methodsThis randomized controlled parallel-group trial was conducted between April and July 2025 in the pediatric venipuncture unit of a university hospital in western Türkiye. The sample comprised 207 children who met the inclusion criteria. The experimental arm included 135 children allocated to either Positive Reinforcement (n = 72) or Bubble Blowing (n = 63), and the control group consisted of 72 children who received standard care without any additional intervention during venipuncture. Data were collected using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale, the Child Fear and Anxiety Scale, and a Visual Analog Scale. Children's self-reported pain, fear, and anxiety scores were used as the primary outcome data. Parametric and nonparametric tests and effect sizes were used in the analyses.
resultsIn the control group, postprocedural pain and anxiety scores increased significantly (p < .001), whereas the increase was attenuated in the bubble-blowing and positive reinforcement groups. Because baseline fear/anxiety scores differed between groups, ANCOVA was performed using preprocedural fear/anxiety scores as a covariate; the adjusted group effect remained statistically significant. In the positive reinforcement group, the increase in fear- anxiety scores was small and did not reach statistical significance. Bubble blowing was more effective than positive reinforcement in reducing pain.
conclusionBoth distraction techniques were associated with lower postprocedural pain and psychological distress scores compared with standard care. Bubble blowing showed a stronger effect on pain outcomes, whereas the positive reinforcement group showed only a small, statistically non-significant increase in fear/anxiety scores. These findings support the integration of simple, low-cost distraction strategies into pediatric nursing practice and skills training.
trial registrationThe clinical trial registration number is NCT07249723. Registered 18 November 2025 - Retrospectively registered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.